Thy audience, thy self.

In cruising around the NPR site during work the other day, I noticed a new column by NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin on the grating nature of some of NPR's music reviews:



The problem, according to some listeners, is that NPR's reviews are too hip to be good journalism. In short, some musical commentary, especially on All Things Considered, is incomprehensible to some listeners, and I confess, to me.



A similar charge could be made against some video game reviews, although the specific "too hip" complaint might not apply as often. Instead, game reviews are often too technical or too coarse for the average reader to appreciate fully.



Not that this is always a bad thing. The hardcore gamer audience is definitely a large segment of the video game press' readership, and there is no lack of sites (and, to a lesser extent, magazines) catering to this crowd. What I fear is that the hardcore audience is driving the games press so much that other, less knowledgable readers are left scrambling for comprehensible information on a subject they may be interested in becoming interested in.



What scares off the casual reader? Here's a few likely suspects, off the top of my head:

• Jargon and technical terms - These are probably the biggest point of exit for the non-gamer. Terms like bump mapping, frames per second, anti-aliasing, and others can get thrown around with startling frequency sometimes. Video game writers, who should be familiar with these terms, have to make a concious effort to notice and limit their use of these terms.



• Comparisons to niche/esoteric games - Specifically, I'm talking about comparisons that don't explain themselves further (i.e. "Ikaruga should be immediately familiar to fans of Radiant Silvergun") If you are using the other game to explicitly illustrate and explain a trait of the reviewed game, then it is more acceptable (i.e. "Ikaruga's frentic action and non-stop stream of enemies is reminiscint of Radiant Silvergun, a largely overlooked Treasure shoot-em-up for the Dreamcast.")



• Point-by-point breakdows - Maybe this is just a pet peeve of mine, but I don't think the general reader appreciates a review that has sections titled "Graphics", "Sound", "Controls" and "Fun Factor," etc. These nitty-gritty details about a game are important, but just listing them out seperately is a good way to lose readers. Instead, try to weave these elements together into a greater narrative about why the game is good or not and why the reader should care.

Rolling Stone, in its heyday, did a great job of making music criticism and discussion feel relevant to the everyday listener (recently, I feel that focus has fallen away). Newspapers and general interest magazines that cover games usually do a good job of avoiding jargon and describing why regular people should care about a game. I encourage sites and magazines of all stripes to try and find a happy medium between keeping the hardcore happy and keepnig the non-gamers interested if only to increase their appeal and readership to a broader audience.